Supply Chain

Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Emerald Article: Supply chain resilience in the global financial crisis:

an empirical study
Uta Jttner, Stan Maklan
Article information:
To cite this document:
Uta Jttner, Stan Maklan, (2011),"Supply chain resilience in the global financial crisis: an empirical study", Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal, Vol. 16 Iss: 4 pp. 246 - 259
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13598541111139062
Downloaded on: 26-06-2012
References: This document contains references to 73 other documents
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
This document has been downloaded 2247 times since 2011. *
Users who downloaded this Article also downloaded: *
Rao Tummala, Tobias Schoenherr, (2011),"Assessing and managing risks using the Supply Chain Risk Management Process (SCRMP)",
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 16 Iss: 6 pp. 474 - 483
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13598541111171165
David L. Olson, Desheng Wu, (2011),"Risk management models for supply chain: a scenario analysis of outsourcing to China", Supply
Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 16 Iss: 6 pp. 401 - 408
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13598541111171110
Candace Y. Yi, E.W.T. Ngai, K-L. Moon, (2011),"Supply chain flexibility in an uncertain environment: exploratory findings from
five case studies", Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 16 Iss: 4 pp. 271 - 283
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13598541111139080
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by BIBLIOTECA CENTRALA UNIVERSITARA EUGEN TODORAN TIM
For Authors:
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service.
Information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
With over forty years' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in
business, society, public policy and education. In total, Emerald publishes over 275 journals and more than 130 book series, as
well as an extensive range of online products and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 3 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is
a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
Research paper
Supply chain resilience in the global nancial
crisis: an empirical study
Uta Juttner and Stan Maklan
Craneld School of Management, Craneld University, Craneld, UK
Abstract
Purpose The objective of this paper is to conceptualise supply chain resilience (SCRES) and to identify and explore empirically its relationship with
the related concepts of supply chain vulnerability (SCV) and supply chain risk management (SCRM).
Design/methodology/approach From a review of the literature the conceptual domain of SCRES is dened and the proposed relationships with
SCRM and SCV are derived. Data from a longitudinal case study with three supply chains are presented to explore the relationship between the
concepts in the context of the global nancial crisis.
Findings The empirical data provide support for a positive impact of supply chain risk (SCR) effect and knowledge management on SCRES and from
SCRES on SCV. SCR effect and knowledge management seem to enhance the SCRES by improving the exibility, visibility, velocity and collaboration
capabilities of the supply chain. Thereby, they decrease the SCV in a disruptive risk event. The positive effects manifest themselves in upstream supplier
networks of supply chains as well as in distribution channels to the customers.
Research limitations/implications The recession caused by the nancial crisis has illustrated the importance of SCRES in todays interdependent
global economy vividly. However, the concept is still in its infancy and has not received the same attention as its counterparts SCRM and SCV. The study
conrms the benet of resilient supply chains and outlines future research needs.
Practical implications The paper identies which supply chain capabilities can support the containment of disruptions and how these capabilities
can be supported by effective SCRM.
Originality/value To date, there has been no empirical study which has investigated supply chain resilience in a disruptive global event.
Keywords Supply chain resilience, Supply chain vulnerability, Supply chain risk management, Supply chain disruptions, Financial risk,
World economy
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Over the last ten years, supply chain vulnerability (SCV) and
its managerial counterpart supply chain risk management
(SCRM) have received considerable attention by practitioners
as well as academics (see for reviews Tang, 2006; Rao and
Goldsby, 2009). The impact of one entity in the supply chain
failing, e.g. nancially can lead to a number of entities closing
down and in some instances the whole supply chain shuts
down. The risk implications of the entwined global
marketplace that characterise todays supply chains have
also been evidenced vividly in the recent global nancial crisis.
Moreover, incidents like the seemingly unlikely volcano
eruption in Iceland make companies aware of how little
control they have over many of the risks they are confronted
with. Still, some companies appear to be able to weather the
occurrence of hazardous events more effectively than others.
They can sustain by coming back to normality or to a new
state from which they can operate.
The apparent ability of some supply chains to recover from
inevitable risk events more effectively than others has more
recently triggered a debate about supply chain resilience
(SCRES). Whereas SCRM focuses on the identication and
management of risks for the supply chain in order to reduce
its vulnerability (Ju ttner et al. 2003), SCRES aims at
developing the adaptive capability to prepare for unexpected
events and to respond to disruptions and recover from them
(Ponomarov and Holcomb, 2009). SCRES is based on the
underlying assumption that not all risk events can be
prevented. SCRM is well explored and a wide range of
empirical studies can be cited which investigate the SCRM
approach of single companies (e.g. Norrman and Jansson,
2004) or industries (Johnson, 2001; Sinha et al., 2004; Blos
et al., 2009), explore the current state of action across
industries (e.g. Ju ttner, 2005), identify risk drivers (Wagner
and Bode, 2006) or conrm the risk reduction effect of
strategies such as early supplier involvement (Zsidisin and
Smith, 2005), supplier development (Matook et al., 2009) or
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1359-8546.htm
16/4 (2011) 246259
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 1359-8546]
[DOI 10.1108/13598541111139062]
Received: December 2009
Revised: June 2010, October 2010
Accepted: January 2011
246
new designs (Khan et al., 2008). However, for SCRES, only
conceptual works can be cited to date which either review the
literature and provide denitions (Rice and Canioato, 2003;
Ponomarov and Holcomb, 2009; Briano et al., 2009) or
normative guidelines based on single best practice examples
(Shef, 2005a). Furthermore, although SCRM has been
proposed as an antecedent to SCRES (Christopher and Peck,
2004), there is no study, which investigates empirically how
these concepts are related.
This paper aims at closing the gap identied in the current
body of knowledge on SCRES, SCRM and SCV. The
following three objectives are pursued:
1 to dene the conceptual domain of SCRES.
2 to conceptualise the linkage between SCRES, SCRM and
SCV.
3 to explore the proposed relationships empirically between:
.
supply chain risk effect as well as knowledge
management;
.
the four formative supply chain capabilities exibility,
velocity, visibility and collaboration; and
.
the vulnerability of supply chains in the context of a
major manifest supply chain risk event: the global
nancial crisis.
The paper is structured into three parts. In the rst part, the
literature is reviewed in order to dene SCRES and to
conceptualise its proposed relationships with SCRM and
SCV. Next, the case study of three companies in their supply
chains is analysed to explore the proposed relationships
between the concepts in practice. Finally, in the third part, we
discuss the ndings and identify the implications of the
research.
Literature review
Supply chain resilience
Supply chain resilience addresses the supply chains ability to
cope with the consequences of unavoidable risk events in order
to return to its original operations or move to a new, more
desirable state after being disturbed (Christopher and Peck,
2004; Peck, 2005). Although the concept is new and
theoretical justications are still in their infancy, a denition
grounded in multiple disciplines has recently been proposed by
Ponomarov and Holcomb (2009). They dene supply chain
resilience as the adaptive capability of the supply chain to
prepare for unexpected events, respond to disruptions, and
recover from them by maintaining continuity of operations at
the desired level of connectedness and control over structure
and function (Ponomarov and Holcomb, 2009, p. 131).
SCRES focuses on the systems adaptive capability to deal with
temporary disruptive events (Smith, 2004; Briano et al., 2009).
These disruptions imply a certain level of turbulence (Hamel
and Valikangas, 2003) and uncertainty in the supply chain (Van
der Vorst and Beulens, 2002), which together cause threats to
the current operations (Shef, 2001). Depending on the
magnitude of these threatening events, the terms disruption
(Shef and Rice, 2005), crisis or even disaster are used
(Natarajarathinam et al., 2009; Richey, 2009). The adaptive
resilience capability has been structured along the three distinct
disruption phases into the supply chain readiness,
responsiveness and recovery (Shef and Rice, 2005).
Furthermore, all denitions share the view that resilience
means to respond and recover at the same or better state of
operations and thus includes system renewal (e.g. Peck, 2005;
Briano et al. 2009). Whereas no conceptual differences
between the denitions of the supply chains adaptive
resilience capability at the system level are apparent in the
literature, the perspectives on the formative resilience elements
are less consistent. The formative elements describe how the
supply chain event readiness, response and recovery can be
secured and is therefore relevant from a supply chain
management perspective. Whereas some authors have dened
the formative elements as antecedents of supply chain
resilience (e.g. Ponomarov and Holcomb, 2009), others see
them as constituting resilience elements (e.g. Christopher and
Peck, 2004; Peck, 2005). Furthermore, some authors capture
these formative elements at a detailed resource level and
include, for example, safety staff (Shef, 2005a, b), while
others focus on system-level re-engineering of the supply chain
in order to ensure resilience (Christopher and Peck, 2004). In
line with Ponomarov and Holcomb (2009), we suggest
capturing these formative resilience elements at a capability
level. Formative resilience capabilities are based on integrating
and coordinating resources which often span functional areas
and thus may become manifest in the supply chain processes.
In the literature, a range of overlapping terminologies for these
formative resilience capabilities is suggested (see Ponomarov
and Holcomb, 2009 and Briano et al. 2009 for overviews). The
four capabilities of exibility, velocity, visibility and
collaboration are most frequently mentioned and capture the
conceptual essence of all suggestions. To add clarity to these
four formative supply chain resilience capabilities, good
starting points are dictionary dened denitions.
Flexibility is dened as being able to bend easily without
breaking and, as such, has been dened as an inherent part
of resilience (Peck, 2005). Flexibility ensures that changes
caused by the risk event can be absorbed by the supply chain
through effective responses (Skipper and Hanna, 2009). It is
hence the ability to encounter, resolve and, when appropriate,
exploit unexpected emergencies. Furthermore, it has been
suggested that exibility can amount to an organic capability,
which also supports sensing disruptions and, as such, relates
to the event readiness dimension of supply chain resilience
(Shef and Rice, 2005). There is a consensus that exibility
needs to be designed into the supply chain and is reected in
its structure, its interorganisational processes as well as its
strategies (e.g. Tang and Tomlin, 2008). Some authors
propose redundancy as a separate formative resilience
capability (e.g. Shef and Rice, 2005). However, in line with
Rice and Canioato (2003), we propose that redundancy as
duplications of capacity so that operations can continue
following failure is rather one route to exibility.
Furthermore, other authors include velocity and speed
into their exibility denition and emphasise that exibility
means doing things fast (e.g. Christopher, 2005; Li et al.,
2006). However, we argue that both are distinct, yet mutually
reinforcing capabilities.
Velocity means speed of motion, action, or operation,
rapidity and swiftness and is dened as distance over time
(Christopher and Peck, 2004). Velocity in a risk event
determines the loss that happens per unit of time. Compared
to exibility, velocity places a stronger emphasis on the
efciency rather than effectiveness of the supply chains
response and recovery throughout and after a disruption
(Smith, 2004). In other words, whereas exibility refers to
reconguration as the number of possible states a supply chain
Supply chain resilience in the global nancial crisis: an empirical study
Volume 16 Number 4 2011 246259
247
can take and to robustness as the number of changes it is able to
cope with, velocity focuses on the pace of exible adaptations
(Stevenson and Spring, 2007). Lead-time is therefore seen as a
key indicator of supply chain velocity (Craneld School of
Management, 2003). From a global supply chain risk
perspective, Manuj and Mentzer (2008a) differentiate three
forms of velocity: the rate at which a risk event happens, the rate
at, which losses happen and how quickly the risk event is
discovered. In a resilience context, a fourth form needs to be
added, i.e. the speed with which a supply chain can recover
from a risk event. Velocity thus supports the adaptive capacity in
all three phases of the risk event: before, throughout and after
the supply chain disruption.
Visibility refers to the capability of being perceived by the
eye or mind. Francis (2008) provides one of the most
comprehensive denitions of supply chain visibility and
describes it as the identity, location and status of entities
transiting the supply chain, captured in timely messages about
events, along with the planned and actual dates/times of these
events (Francis, 2008, p. 182). Supply chain visibility
addresses information about entities and events regarding
end-to-end orders, inventory, transportation and distribution
as well as any events in the environment (Wei and Wang,
2010; Smith, 2004; Shef, 2001). Visibility ensures
condence into the supply chain and prevents over-
reactions, unnecessary interventions and ineffective
decisions in a risk event situation (Christopher and Lee,
2004). As such, visibility is related to effective disruption
response and recovery. Furthermore, the ability to see from
one end of the pipeline to the other is an important element of
event readiness because the right signals are picked up in a
timely manner (Van der Vorst and Beulens, 2002). Visibility,
velocity and exibility together are sometimes captured under
agility (Li et al., 2009; Christopher and Peck, 2004; Chopra
and Sodhi, 2004; Faisal et al., 2006; Tang and Tomlin, 2008).
However, in order to have a clear view on all dimensions of
resilience we decide to target all three formative capabilities
separately.
Collaboration means to work with another or others on a
joint project. Since supply chain resilience is a network-wide,
interorganisational concept, its formative capabilities have to
adopt the attitudinal predisposition of the parties to align
forces in the case of a risk event. Collaboration is related to
visibility in the sense that it includes the parties willingness to
share even sensitive risk and risk event-related information
(Faisal et al., 2006). As such, collaboration contributes to
reduced uncertainty and event readiness (Craneld School of
Management, 2003). Furthermore, collaboration has been
suggested as the glue that holds supply chain organisations in
a crisis together (Richey, 2009, p. 623). It prevents
opportunistic behaviour on behalf of individual parties
which would adversely effect the whole systems response
capability. For example, decision synchronisation and
incentive alignment as two of the architectural elements of
supply chain collaboration (Simatupang and Sridharan, 2008)
are essential for effective system-level disruption responses.
Finally, Shef (2001) stresses that collaboration is equally
important after a disruption was overcome in order to share
experiences among the parties. Such post disruption
collaboration is likely to have an effect on the systems
ability to deal with future disruptions along all three phases:
before, throughout and after the event.
Overall, the four formative resilience capabilities echo
rather than contradict widely accepted principles of good
supply chain management. However, the literature suggests
that disruptions are a strong moderator for the positive effect
of these formative capabilities on smooth supply chain
operations.
The relationship between SCRES, SCV and SCRM
Supply chain resilience and supply chain vulnerability
SCV is the susceptibility of the supply chain to the likelihood
and consequences of disruptions (Blos et al., 2009; Svensson,
2000, 2002; Christopher and Peck, 2004). It therefore
captures the risk exposure of the supply chain and is often
conceptualised together with supply chain risks (e.g. Wagner
and Bode, 2006). As Peck (2006, p. 132) states: something
that is at risk, is vulnerable. By addressing the vulnerability
of the supply chain, the supply chain risks are addressed.
Supply chain risks are anything that may disrupt or impede
the information, material or product ows from original
suppliers to the delivery of the nal product to the ultimate
end-user (Peck, 2006). Stated simply, supply chain risks refer
to the possibility and effect of mismatch between supply and
demand (Ju ttner et al., 2003). Based on the generic risk
concept, supply chain risks also combine the two risk
dimensions: the likelihood/probability of a loss with the
impact/effect of that loss for the company or supply chain
(Manuj and Mentzer, 2008b). Supply chain risks may or may
not become manifest, i.e. a supply chain with severe
vulnerability may in fact never experience a disruption. A
supply chain disruption is an unintended, untoward and
exceptional situation that leads to the occurrence of risk
(Wagner and Bode, 2006). Since supply chain risks are
dened as something that exists, whether it is managed or not,
a supply chain will always display a certain degree of
vulnerability (Peck, 2006). Furthermore, since some
contemporary supply chain management practices, such as,
global sourcing and single sourcing increase the supply chain
risks (e.g. Ju ttner, 2005; Wagner and Bode, 2006), a certain
degree of vulnerability may deliberately be taken into account.
To summarise, SCV as the exposure of the supply chain to
risks is a characteristic of any supply chain system. SCV is a
latent condition which only becomes manifest if a disruptive
event occurs. However, the higher the SCV, the more likely a
disruptive event and/or the more severe its consequences. As a
latent condition, SCV can be analysed by measuring the
exposure of the supply chain to environmental, supply
network and organizational risks (Briano et al., 2009). As a
manifest condition, the impact of a supply chain disruption
indicates the degree of vulnerability. Since lowering the
impact of a supply chain disruption is also the key target of
SCRES, it can be assumed that both concepts are related.
More specically, if SCRES decreases the negative
consequences of supply chain risk events by ensuring a fast
return to its original or improved operation, it should, at the
same time, decrease the SCV in the case of a manifest risk
event.
Supply chain resilience and supply chain risk management
The most commonly accepted denition in the fast-growing
body of literature on SCRM was proposed by Ju ttner et al.
(2003). They dene SCRM as the identication of potential
sources of risk and implementation of appropriate strategies
through a coordinated approach among supply chain risk
members, to reduce supply chain vulnerability (Ju ttner et al.,
248
2003, p. 201). One main objective of SCRM is thus to reduce
the SCV. However, other authors also emphasise that SCRM
aims at increasing the resilience of the supply chain (e.g.
Shef, 2005a, b; Rao and Goldsby, 2009). From this
perspective, the emphasis is on managing and mitigating
risks and, thereby, fostering the resilience of the supply chain.
Although both outcome perspectives appear reasonable, they
are not identical and have not yet been reconciled. For
example, a supply chain risk measure does not necessarily
impair the vulnerability of the supply chain and, at the same
time, increase its resilience. Likewise, a supply chain with high
vulnerability could either have high or low resilience.
We suggest that the risk dimension which is primarily
addressed by the SCRM actions can help to clarify the
relationship with both concepts, SCV and SCRES. In line
with Tang and Tomlin (2008), Ellegaard (2008) and Manuj
and Mentzer (2008a, b), we distinguish between three types
of risk management actions: rstly, those addressing primarily
the probability of supply chain risks (e.g. avoidance),
secondly, risk actions focusing on the risk effects (e.g. risk
sharing or continuity plans) and, thirdly, any actions which
increase the knowledge about supply chain risks (e.g.
accessing online portals or company visits to learn about
external supply chain partners). If a SCRM initiative only
lowers the probability, the SCV as the supply chains latent
exposure to supply chain risks is reduced but it will not have
an effect on the SCRES. In this sense, a supply chain risk
strategy which avoids certain geographical risk areas has
lowered the likelihood of a disruption caused, e.g. by political
instability in the region. It has, however, not increased its
capability to response to and recover from a disruption if it
still occurred. However, if a supply chain risk initiative
successfully addresses the risk effects, the SCRES increases.
For example, joint business continuity plans developed
together with suppliers are likely to have a positive impact
on the supply chains capacity to respond to and recover from
a disruption through collaboration. In a similar vein, a
globally dispersed portfolio of suppliers is likely to positively
effect the SCRES in the case of a risk event. The supply chain
can fall back onto suppliers from other regions if only one
region is effected by the risk event, and, thereby, ensure a
exible response to the event. Finally, a risk approach, which
aims at increasing the knowledge about supply chain risks
should also have a positive impact on SCRES. Supply chain
risk knowledge can improve the event readiness because it
increases the visibility and shortens the time for detection of
the events (see Manuj and Mentzer, 2008b). Furthermore, it
has also been suggested that risk knowledge management can
decrease the SCV because knowledge is an important
prerequisite to take counteractive measures prior to a risk
event. This, in turn, decreases the likelihood of a risk event
(Ellegaard, 2008). To summarise, it can be assumed that
SCRM is related with both, SCRES and SCV. Depending on
the primary target of the specic risk strategy or action, either
the SCRES, the SCV or the SCRES and SCV should be
positively effected by SCRM.
Figure 1 summarises the literature review by providing an
illustration of the proposed relationships between the three
concepts.
The case study
In order to empirically explore the relationship between
SCRES, SCRM and SCV, an explanatory multiple case study
was conducted (Seuring, 2008). In line with the focus of this
paper, the case study concentrates on gaining further
knowledge on SCRES as the main concept and its
relationship with SCRM and SCV. The two research
objectives for the empirical study are therefore:
1 to understand whether and how supply chain risk effect
and risk knowledge management inuence the resilience
of the supply chain; and
2 to understand whether and how SCRES effects the
vulnerability of the supply chain in a situation with a
manifest risk event.
We excluded the relationship between SCRM and SCV and,
furthermore, limited our analysis of SCRES to the four
formative capabilities. In other words, no differentiated
analysis of the adaptive SCRES capability in the three
distinct phases prior to an event (event readiness), throughout
the event (response) and after the event (recovery) was
included. Figure 2 illustrates the concepts upon which we
focused in the empirical study.
Case methodology and case companies
A case study approach is the most appropriate for exploring
the research objectives for three reasons:
1 the nature of the objectives which involve how and
why reasoning in the exploration;
2 the fact that the investigator has little control over events;
and
3 the focus on a contemporary phenomenon within a real-
life context (Yin, 2003).
A comparative, explanatory study of three case companies
with a longitudinal research design was applied, which
adheres to the guidelines for case research proposed by Yin
(2003), Seuring (2008) and Ellram (1996). In line with most
qualitative research, the selection of the three case companies
followed a non-probability sampling approach based on
theoretical and convenience sampling (Strauss and Corbin,
1998; Bryman and Bell, 2007). First, and in line with
theoretical sampling, the choice of the case companies and
data sources was controlled by the research concepts of
Figure 1 The relationship between SCRES, SCRM and SCV
Figure 2 Concepts focused in the empirical study
249
SCRM, SCRES and SCV. Initially, the study aimed at
investigating the SCRM approaches of the companies. Here, a
convenience sampling approach was applied, based on
company access and a proven interest of the companies in
the topic of SCRM. When the nancial crisis became
manifest, the companies were contacted again. This time,
data gathering was driven by the two additional concepts of
SCV and SCRES as well as their relationship with SCRM.
Such an ongoing data gathering process is typical for a
theoretical sampling approach. All three companies agreed to
provide renewed access in the phase following the nancial
crisis.
The companies represent three global supply chains from
different industries, namely a cabling supplier (Cable Co[1]),
a global supplier of specialty chemical products (Chemical
Co) and a wood/timber wholesaler (Timber Co). Cable Co is
a 3rd generation family-owned cabling supplier with 650
employees and a 370 Million Euro turnover. A total 78 per
cent of the revenue is export-based. Chemical Co supplies
processing materials for sealing, bonding, damping,
reinforcing and protecting load-bearing structures in
construction and other industries and generates 1.8 billion
Euro turnover with 8,500 employees worldwide. Timber Co is
a leading national timber wholesaler with 350 employees and
an annual revenue of 120 million Euro. They only serve the
national market but deal with approximately 500 global
suppliers. Despite the differences in terms of industries and
company size, all three companies share some fundamental
commonalities regarding their overarching business models
and supply chain strategies. They:
.
have concentrated on core competencies, outsource non-
competence related activities and are therefore dependent
on their suppliers;
.
serve business customers and not end consumers
(business-to-business markets);
.
work with suppliers from low cost countries;
.
follow a high quality differentiating strategy with lead time
and availability as order-winning factors; and
.
operate a global supply chain.
Data collection
As mentioned above, data collection was conducted in the
context of the recession caused by the nancial crisis. In the
literature, recessions are qualied as normal, economic
accidents or crisis (Mitroff and Aplaslan, 2003). From the
perspective of our study, the nancial crisis can be seen as a
major demand risk event, which affected all three case
companies. It started with a sudden and unexpected trough in
demand and was followed by a period of high demand
uctuations in time and across regions as well as an extremely
high demand uncertainty. The data collection occurred prior
to the recession in 2007 as well as at the end of 2009, just
after the low point of the recession. In the rst phase prior to
the recession, the data collection aimed at investigating the
risk management actions employed by the three companies
along their downstream and upstream supply chain processes.
In the second phase in 2009, the interview and secondary
data explored the performance of the supply chains
throughout the recession, i.e. the effects for the supply
chain operations as well as the factors, which helped to absorb
its effect. Table I summarises the data sources used in the
three case studies.
As shown in Table I, both phases included extensive data-
gathering efforts. Overall, 28 semi-structured interviews were
conducted, most of them were tape-recorded and transcribed,
six company-internal workshops were run and extensive notes
(e.g. in the form of ip-charts) taken. Furthermore, around
200 pages of company internal documents (such as internal
strategy or process documents, supplier evaluation tools and
supplier questionnaires or business continuity plans) were
screened. The data represents multiple perspectives within the
companies because managers from different functions along
the supply chain and from different hierarchical levels are
included. Supplier or customer representatives have not been
involved in the interviews but secondary data from suppliers
as well as customers were included (e.g. supplier responses to
a vulnerability survey).
Data analysis
Consistent with the research objectives, the data analysis was
carried out in two steps in order to, rstly, match the raw data
with the main concepts of interest and, secondly, to identify
the patterns and relationships between the main concepts. In
a rst step, the data were analysed using content analysis
following the procedures suggested by Krippendorff (1980);
Weber (1990) and Kolbe and Burnett (1991). The qualitative
data coding simplies the analysis complexity by labelling
data sources according to the coding scheme, which is
developed for the concepts SCRES, SCRM and SCV. Here,
a priori coding was applied, i.e. the categories were
established prior to the analysis based upon denitions of the
theoretical concepts from the literature (Weber, 1990). The a
priori, literature-derived coding scheme comprised:
.
two SCR effect management categories (i.e. sharing risks
and hedging risks);
.
SCR knowledge management;
.
the four SCRES capabilities; and
.
three SCV categories (see Table II).
The classication scheme for supply chain risk effect and
knowledge management was informed by the structures
proposed by Ellegaard (2008) and Manuj and Mentzer
(2008a). Categorising SCRES data was based on the
literature-derived denitions of the four capabilities (see
Table II for denitions and references). Finally, for SCV, we
adopted the three dimensional risk effect scheme from
Oehmen et al. (2009). The authors dene manifest
vulnerability or risk effects as defected supply chain targets
and distinguish between rst, failed revenue targets, second,
failed cost targets and third, failed lead time and/or availability
targets (Oehmen et al., 2009).
The raw data with references rst, to any supply chain risk
management activities of the case companies; second, to the
resilience of the supply chain; and third, to the impact of the
nancial crisis on the supply chains, were structured into
recording units (Krippendorff, 1980) and coded along the
predened categories. Tables III and IV provide examples of
recording units, i.e. summaries of raw data from the
interviews, which were coded. The data from the combined
data sets of both phases were coded independently by two
experienced researchers. The coefcient of agreement
between both judges was 78 per cent for the SCRM
categories; 76 per cent for the SCRES and 68 per cent for
the SCV categories.
250
Table I Case study data
Data sources
Year Company Interviewees roles/business functions
No.
interviews
No.
workshops Secondary data
2007 and 2009 Cable Co. Company owner 11 3 Internal documents
Head of Corporate Procurement Secondary data from customers
Supply Chain Manager and suppliers
Sourcing managers
Logistics managers
Product managers
Sales managers
Production managers
2007 and 2009 Chemical Co. Sourcing Director 9 2 Internal documents
Sourcing Manager Secondary data from suppliers
Logistics Manager
Product Manager
SOP Manager
Head of Production
Head of Sales Organisation
Marketing Manager
Supply Risk Manager
Head of Support Team Global Sourcing Strategic Projects
2007 and 2009 Timber Co. Sourcing Director 8 1 Internal documents
Sourcing Manager Secondary data from suppliers
Head of Logistics & Transport
Sales Manager
Warehouse Manager
Product Manager
Table II Coding scheme
Code
SCRM
1. SCR effect management Code denition
1.1 Sharing risk Any risk management actions aimed at sharing losses with external supply chain parties (adapted from Ellegaard,
2008; Manuj and Mentzer, 2008a)
1.2 Hedging risk through redundant
resources
Any risk management actions aimed at preventing disruptions of supply chain operations through redundant tangible
(e.g. transport or production capacities) or intangible (e.g. processes, skills) resources (adapted from Ellegaard, 2008;
Manuj and Mentzer, 2008a)
2. SCR knowledge management Any risk management actions aimed at creating knowledge about supply chain risks (adapted from Ellegaard, 2008;
Manuj and Mentzer, 2008a)
SCRES
1. Flexibility capability The ease with which a supply chain can change its range number (i.e. the number of possible options) and range
heterogeneity (i.e. the degree of difference between the options) in order to cope with a range of market changes/
events while performing comparably well (adapted from Stevenson and Spring, 2007; Skipper and Hanna, 2009).
2. Velocity capability The speed with which a supply chain can react to market changes/events (adapted from Christopher and Peck, 2004).
3. Visibility capability The extent to which actors within the supply chain have access to or share timely information about supply chain
operations, other actors and management which they consider as being key or useful to their operations (adapted
from Barratt and Oke, 2007; Wei and Wang, 2010).
4. Collaboration capability The level of joint decision making and working together at a tactical, operational or strategic level between two or
more supply chain members. Scalable through the magnitude of relationship strength, quality and closeness
(adapted from Zacharia et al. 2009; Singh and Power, 2009; Barratt 2004).
(Manifest) SCV
1. Revenue targets (Non-)achievement of any supply chain revenue targets (adapted from Oehmen et al., 2009)
2. Cost targets (Non-)achievement of any supply chain cost targets (adapted from Oehmen et al., 2009)
3. Lead time/availability targets (Non-) achievement of any lead time and/or availability targets (adapted from Oehmen et al., 2009)
251
In a second step, patterns between the main concepts of
interest were detected through selective coding (Strauss and
Corbin, 1998). Here, patterns were sought out and analysed
in order to explore the relationship between SCRES, SCRM
and SCV. Pattern matching is considered one of the best
techniques in case study analysis (Ellram, 1996). Tables III
and IV indicate the patterns between SCRM and SCRES
(Table III) and between SCRES and SCV (Table IV), which
will be further explained in the next section.
A case study protocol was written in order to support the
preparation, execution and follow-up of the multiple-case
study. The structured documentation of the research design,
data collection procedures and outline of the case study report
facilitates the replication of the researchers approach and
thus increases the reliability of the research (Yin, 2003;
Ellram, 1996). Construct validity was increased by
triangulating data from multiple sources and the use of key
informants to review and validate draft reports (Seuring,
2008; Ellram, 1996). Like in many other case studies,
external validity is limited, given that the paper draws only
from three cases. However, the multiple case studies augment
external validity and help guard against observer bias.
Furthermore, our aim is to generalize to the theoretical
concepts and not to populations or universes and, therefore,
analytic generalization to existing concepts in SCRES and
SCRM and not statistical generalization is our main concern
(Yin, 1981). Internal validity is ensured by using two
independent judges (Miles and Huberman, 1994).
Furthermore, longitudinal research designs can increase the
internal validity by enabling one to track cause and effect
(Leonard-Barton, 1990).
Table IV The relationship between SCRES and SCV evidence from the case companies
Positive impact on manifest supply chain vulnerability throughout
the nancial crisis
Supply chain resilience capabilities Revenue targets Cost targets Lead time/availability targets Evidence in rms
Flexibility () ()
Examples of coded data from the case studies: Cable Co.
Response to unpredictable demand change Chemical Co.
Shifting to cost-effective supply sources Timber Co.
Optimised capacity utilisation
Velocity ()
Quick response to unpredictable demand change Chemical Co.
Visibility () ()
Shifting to cost-effective supply sources Chemical Co.
Counteractive measures to avoid non-availability
Optimised capacity utilisation
Collaboration () ()
Lower sourcing costs Chemical Co.
Counteractive measures to avoid non-availability Timber Co.
Table III The relationship between SCRM and SCRES evidence from the case companies
Positive impact on supply chain resilience capabilities
Supply chain risk management Flexibility Velocity Visibility Collaboration
SCR effect management
1. Sharing risks () () ()
Examples of coded data from the case studies:
Index-based pricing
Joint business continuity plans
Outsourcing agreements
2. Hedging risks through redundant resources () ()
Regional distribution centres or warehouses
Decentralised supply chain management organization
Dual and/or multi sourcing
SCR knowledge management ()
Formalised supplier risk management process
Human resources dedicated specically to supply chain risk management
252
Discussion of the ndings
The following presentation of the ndings is structured along
the two research objectives and investigates, rst, the
relationship between SCR effect as well as knowledge
management and the four SCRES capabilities and, second,
the relationship between the SCRES capabilities and the SCV
throughout the recession.
Relationship between SCR effect and knowledge
management and the SCRES capabilities
The ndings from the case data analysis provide support for a
relationship between the concepts of SCRM and SCRES.
More specically, the case data supports a positive impact of
risk effect-oriented actions on all four resilience capabilities as
well as a positive impact of knowledge-oriented actions on
visibility. A summary of the ndings is illustrated in Table III
and explained as follows.
SCR effect management sharing risks
All three rms maintained either operational-level or
strategic-level agreements with suppliers as a means to share
the supply chain risks. Risk sharing enables loss dispersion
and is a widespread supply chain risk mitigation approach
(e.g. Ellegaard, 2008; Ritchie and Brindley, 2007; Manuj und
Mentzer, 2008a). In our case study, the risk sharing
agreements had a positive impact on the supply chain
exibility, visibility and collaboration capabilities. For
example, Cable Co set up an agreement with its copper
suppliers to link prices to the index-based pricing of the
London Metal Exchange. Since the supply of copper has been
extremely unpredictable in the past, they also set up joint
continuity plans. Both measures supported the supply chain
visibility because copper prices could be condently
monitored real-time from all points within the supply chain
(Wei and Wang, 2010; Van der Vorst and Beulens, 2002). The
joint business continuity plans additionally strengthened the
willingness to share the consequences emerging from the
volatility of this critical raw material and to restrict
opportunistic behaviour (Simatupang and Sridharan, 2008).
Strategic-level risk sharing agreements were introduced by
Timber Co, when the company started to outsource part of its
logistics to an external service provider. Whereas the rm
traditionally ran its own eet and fully controlled the
outbound logistics process, local incidents in the past
revealed the vulnerability of the supply chain to any logistics
process failures. The strategic outsourcing agreement can be
interpreted as a measure to build exibility into the re-
congured supply chain so that disruptions can be absorbed
through a joint effort of both parties (Stevenson and Spring,
2007). Such a coincidence of collaboration and exibility is in
line with recent studies, which found that a lack of trust and
collaboration are major barriers to successfully introducing
exibility into the supply chain (Chan et al., 2009).
SCR effect management hedging risks through redundant
resources
A second group of risk management activities employed by all
three companies concerns investments into redundant supply
chain resources. The underlying risk management principle,
which attempts to exploit the law of large numbers so that a
single event does not effect all entities at the same time and/or
with the same magnitude, has been referred to as a hedging
strategy (Manuj and Mentzer, 2008a). Our case ndings are
in line with the literature and suggest that the approach
positively impacts the SCRES exibility and velocity
capabilities (Tang and Tomlin, 2008; Ellegaard, 2008). In
the case companies, investments into redundant resources
concern tangible (e.g. regional distribution centres or
warehouses), organizational (e.g. decentralised supply chain
management organization) as well as intangible resources
(supplier relationships). For example, Cable Co set up ve
regional operational supply chain hubs as a means to supply
regionally for regional demand. Although the responsibility
for planning remained at the central headquarter, the
decentralised structure increased the velocity of the shorter
operational supply pipelines. It also allowed them to maintain
a dual sourcing strategy for selected critical components,
which secured exibility. Chemical Co as well as Timber Co
invested into additional warehousing capacity. Thereby,
Chemical Co reacted to a former severe supply chain
disruption caused by an IT failure in its centralised
warehouse. Timber Co, however, aimed at improving its
delivery time and restricting the risk related to non-availability
in the time-sensitive market. Splitting up the market into two
regions shortened the lead-time and increased the
downstream velocity of the supply chain. They also started
working with new Chinese suppliers, which had positive
exibility, yet negative upstream velocity implications.
SCR knowledge management
In the case study, risk knowledge management expressed the
desire of the companies to monitor closely the contingencies
from the various risk resources. The most prominent
monitoring measures focused supply side risks and
concerned the integration of formalised risk management
into the supplier management processes and into the
procurement structure. Such an upstream focus of the
companies risk knowledge management is in line with the
literature (e.g. Ju ttner, 2005; Matook et al., 2009). In all three
rms, the close monitoring of supply risks had a positive
impact on the supply chain visibility. For example, Cable Co
introduced a formalised, standard supplier management
process with an integrated risk perspective in all ve-supply
chain management hubs. Among other measures, the process
also included a periodic supplier vulnerability evaluation.
According to the interviewees, the company has always been
aware of the risk associated with its large base of SME supply
companies. Still, they were surprised about the additional
information they gained regarding vulnerable bottlenecks in
the supply network caused, for example, by second tier
suppliers. Chemical Co had a small team attached to the
global sourcing organisation, which was dedicated to risk
management issues. The team was introduced because the
company had substantially expanded its international
operations over the past ten years and felt vulnerable to
contingencies in distant regions. Moreover, they were acutely
aware that the global expansion had increased the complexity
in the supply chain organisation. Therefore, the risk
management team was assigned to deal with the complexity
risk by increasing the visibility within the international supply
network.
To summarise, the different risk management actions
carried out by the case companies had a positive yet
differentiated impact on the four resilience capabilities.
Whereas sharing risks appears potentially to impact the
three resilience capabilities of exibility, visibility and
253
collaboration, redundant resources seem primarily to address
the exibility and velocity of the supply chain. Furthermore,
in our case companies, knowledge creating risk management
proved to impact the SCRES by improving the supply
network visibility. We will now proceed by presenting the
ndings for our second research objective: the relationship
between the four SCRES capabilities and the vulnerability of
the supply chain throughout a disruption event.
Relationship between the SCRES capabilities and the
SCV throughout the nancial crisis
In all three companies, the magnitude of the demand risk
caused by the nancial crisis was comparable. Internationally,
the demand declined by an estimated 20-30 per cent within
six months and, through ripple effects, the prices at all stages
of the supply chain decreased by up to 40 per cent. From a
supply chain perspective, the recession was therefore initially a
demand risk. However, in the wake of the collapsing prices, it
spread into an additional supply risk due to the high number
of supplier insolvencies. The bottom of the demand slump
was in the second quarter of 2009 but the following months
were characterised by high uncertainty and forecasts were
almost impossible. Whereas some markets seemed to recover
a lot quicker, others, like the US market, for example, lagged
behind.
The following analysis of the ndings from the three case
companies supports the proposed relationship between the
four SCRES capabilities and the SCV in a situation with a
manifest risk event. Furthermore, the data analysis revealed
that the four resilience capabilities helped the companies to
contain the negative effect of the recession (see Table IV).
Flexibility
Throughout the recession, the supply chain exibility helped
to contain the negative effect on the case companies cost
targets and revenue targets. On the cost side, the exibility to
shift to cost-effective supply sources was a key enabler.
Flexibility supported by dual as well as multiple sourcing was
actively used either to move part of the purchasing volume to
cheaper sources or, alternatively, to strengthen the companies
bargaining power in price negotiations with their suppliers.
The ndings support and complement those by Fantazy et al.
(2009), who found that sourcing exibility has a positive
effect on net prot in normal, non-disruptive supply chain
operations. Furthermore, exibility to reallocate capacity and
to optimise capacity utilisation within the internal and/or
external network helped to contain costs. Flexibility also had a
positive impact on revenue targets. It enabled two of the case
companies to respond to unpredictable changes in demand or,
more specically, to satisfy the rising demand for low cost
products. For example, Timber Co used the new Chinese
supplier to launch a cheap private label product line which
accounted for almost 30 per cent of the revenue in the year
2009.
Velocity
As predicted in our conceptualisation of SCRES above, in the
ndings, velocity was closely related with exibility. Velocity
also had a positive impact on the companies revenue targets
and supported exibility by adding pace to the supply
systems adaptability. The redundant resources within the
supply chain enabled two of the case companies to use the fast
access to regional capacity in order to exploit unexpected
regional or local demand pick-ups. The demand pick-ups
were difcult to predict and could be driven by different
events, ranging from public spending, a temporary rebound of
the stock market to the insolvency of a competitor. According
to the interviewees, especially demand pick-ups due to
competitor insolvency were strategic windows because
market share was reallocated among the incumbent players.
They predicted that the post-recession phase, when demand
rises back to pre-recession levels, would equally present
opportunities for the competition. These ndings support the
conceptual literature on SCRES which suggests that resilience
not only supports the systems return to its original state but
potentially to a new, more desirable state (Christopher and
Peck, 2004; Ponomarov and Holcomb, 2009). Furthermore,
they stress the crucial role of velocity for SCRES because
disruption events seem to entail potential rst mover
advantages. Here, not only exible adaptations, but the
speed of the supply chain adaptations is crucial.
Visibility
For the case companies, visibility was an important driver of
the effective timing of intervening actions throughout the risk
event. In line with the literature, it was therefore related to
improved decision making (Barratt and Oke, 2007). Unlike
short disruptive events such as an earthquake, the disruption
caused by the recession lasted for a longer term and its
development was unpredictable. Therefore, the timing of
supply chain responses throughout the disruption was crucial.
In two of the case companies, effective responses supported
by supply chain visibility helped to offset non-availability and
mitigated the negative impact on cost targets. For example, by
closely monitoring its suppliers and by sharing information
regarding risk exposure, Cable Co was able to identify
nancially vulnerable suppliers at the beginning of the
nancial crisis. This, in turn, extended the reaction time
and enabled them to take counteractive measures against the
possibility of delivery failure caused by supplier insolvency.
The example also supports the notion in the literature that
visibility is an outcome of information sharing activities
between supply chain partners (Wei and Wang, 2010). This
may, however, create a potential barrier to visibility in a risk
event because vulnerable rms may see the release of sensitive
information as an additional threat to their survival. In
support of this argument, Cable Co used the visibility in one
case for the premature termination of a supplier contract.
Finally, within Chemical Co, the risk management team in
the global sourcing organisation leveraged its visibility of the
sourcing network in order to substitute a pricey raw material
(adhesive) through a low cost alternative, which permitted
cost savings of up to 20 per cent in a major business line.
Collaboration
In the literature, collaboration is often seen either from an
operational perspective with an emphasis on its supporting
role for the smooth functioning of an efcient supply chain or
from a strategic knowledge or innovation perspective, as a
means to access complementary skills which are essential to
meet competitive challenges (e.g. Soosay et al., 2008;
Simatupang and Sridharan, 2008). Our ndings from the
case studies seem to suggest that in a crisis situation, the
positive collaboration impact on the smooth supply chain
functioning predominates. Collaborating with supply chain
parties helped all three case companies to contain the negative
impact on the cost as well as availability targets by
maintaining operations. On the availability side, the joint
254
continuity plans, which Cable Co set up proved to be
extremely valuable when one of its big suppliers had to close
down capacity and, as a consequence, started to deliver on the
basis of an emergency priority plan. The collaborative
continuity plan ensured that Cable Co was among the
customers supplied with rst priority. On the cost side, the
LME index-based material pricing eased Cable Cos nances.
When their own market prices were down by 35 per cent, they
relied heavily on suppliers who were willing to pass the lower
raw material prices on to their customers. Extreme peaks and
troughs of sourcing and market prices were also a major
challenge for the other two companies and the collaborative
agreements had a parachute effect by dampening the impact
for each individual player. These ndings appear to suggest
that a disruption caused by a risk event triggers a bullwhip
effect for the supply chain. The level of collaboration between
the parties denes whether the effect is aggravated through
independent and opportunistic decision making or alleviated
through joint decision making and risk sharing. In the light of
this argument, supported by our case research, the apparent
reluctance of rms to collaborate in risk situations seems
alarming (Ju ttner, 2005).
To summarise, all three case studies provide support for a
relationship between SCRES and SCV in a risk event. All four
resilience capabilities helped to avoid or limit the negative
consequences of the risk event for the revenue, cost and lead
time/availability targets of the focused supply chains.
Implications and conclusions
The essence of resilience is the containment of disruptions
and recovery from them (Shef, 2005b). To date, there is no
empirical research which has investigated resilience of
extended supply chains in a global disruption event in order
to identify which supply chain capabilities can support the
containment of the risk consequences and how these
capabilities can be supported by effective SCRM. This
paper conceptualises SCRES and explores its relationship
with the related concepts of SCRM and SCV. Furthermore, it
investigates empirically, in the context of the recent global
recession, how the resilience of extended supply chains can be
strengthened by the companies SCRM strategies and how
SCRES can positively inuence the vulnerability of their
supply chains. It has both managerial and research
implications.
Managerial implications
Recent events like the nancial crisis or the volcano eruption
have demonstrated again that risk events are inevitable and
that they are even more likely to effect todays supply chains
with their increasing global stretch and complexity. Still, as
emphasised by Christopher and Peck (2004), many
organizations are unaware of the need to consider the
resilience of their supply chains. Instead, they seem to be
prone to address the probability of adverse events in their
SCRM rather than the effect (Ellegaard, 2008). Especially
risks with low probability yet high impact tend to be tolerated
because the potential sources appear to be too manifold and
the ability to control them too limited. The paper argues for a
stronger emphasis on SCR effect and knowledge
management. We have been able to provide evidence that
this can support the four resilience capabilities and,
ultimately, lower the destructive impact of inevitable risk
events. For managers, the advantage of SCRES is twofold.
First, as characteristics of the supply chain system, the four
resilience capabilities appear to be able to cope with risk
events from varied sources. Therefore, they can eventually
have a strong impact on a companys SCR portfolio by
addressing a range of risks simultaneously.
Second, recent studies suggest that exibility (see Fantazy
et al., 2009), collaboration (see Soosay et al., 2008) and
visibility (see Wei and Wang, 2010) are intangible dynamic
supply chain capabilities that can not only contain supply
chain disruptions but, moreover, generate competitive
advantage also in normal, routine operating times. The rich
data from the qualitative case studies can point managers at
some of the managerial principles of SCRES. For example, it
appears as if centralised supply chain planning with
decentralised local capacity could be one of these
overarching principles. Moreover, having slack resources in
strategic supply chain project roles appears to be another
principle for resilience building. Because resilience requires a
just in case perspective on the supply chain, it cannot easily
be reconciled with the responsibilities and mindset required
for routine operations. Both of these principles challenge
some of the trends in supply chain management in the last
years and should trigger debates among supply chain
managers.
Limitations and research implications
The conceptualisation of SCRES and the empirical ndings
regarding its relationship with SCRM and SCV are the main
contributions of the paper to the body of knowledge in this
research area. These contributions as well as the limitations of
our study suggest the following areas for further research.
First, our ndings indicate a differentiated relationship
between the SCRM actions and the four dimensions of
SCRES. For example, whereas supply chain risk knowledge
management only appeared to be related to improved
visibility within the supply chain, sharing risks as a risk
effect-oriented action had a positive impact on exibility,
visibility as well as collaboration. These ndings suggest that a
more rened relationship between SCRM and SCRES and a
tighter specication of research propositions should be
investigated through further empirical research. Second, our
study did not investigate any antecedents to SCRES. For
example, the literature suggests trust as joint antecedent to
collaboration, visibility and exibility (Zacharia et al., 2009;
Wei and Wang, 2010). Further research should help to
identify additional behavioural antecedents and, thereby,
support companies in their endeavours to improve the
resilience of their supply chains. Third, our conceptual
framework proposes that SCRM actions that only address the
probability of risk events should not be related SCRES. This
relationship was not considered in our empirical study and,
therefore, needs to be addressed in future research. Fourth,
our research design did not enable us to explore the resilience
of the case companies supply chains systematically in each of
the three phases: before, throughout and after the disruption.
Some initial evidence provides support for the assumption
that the resilience might differ in the three disruption phases.
For example, all three case companies did not feel prepared
for the nancial crisis. Instead, after several years of steady
growth, it caught them by complete surprise. The response
and recovery capability throughout and after the event,
however, was judged differently. Although they suffered severe
255
revenue and prot losses, which also caused redundancies,
compared with their main competitors, all three companies
did well. Given that resilience in all three phases is often
stressed in the SCRES denitions (Ponomarov and Holcomb,
2009), further research should compare and contrast its
development throughout the course of a disruption. Fifth,
future research should also compare the attitude of
organizations before and after a disruptive event. The
literature stresses that attitude and risk perception inuence
the willingness to take any precautions (e.g. Ju ttner, 2005;
Zsidisin, 2003). Risk perception, in turn, appears to be
inuenced by past crises (e.g. Norrman and Jansson, 2004).
Attitude changes might therefore be an important driver for
the SCRES capability acquisition over time[2]. Sixth, our
paper studies SCRES in only one risk event. The literature
seems to suggest that SCRES might be a dynamic capability,
which is able to absorb the negative effects from a range of
different risk sources (Briano et al., 2009; Teece, 2007). More
work is needed which takes a contingency perspective and
investigates the impact of situational factors on SCRES.
Seventh, a contingency perspective could also help us conrm
the tentative nding from our study that resilience capabilities
may exert a different impact on the supply chain in a
disruption situation compared with a routine situation. In the
latter, the focus is not primarily on achieving competitive
advantage but on fast recurrence to normal operations.
Finally, the literature as well as our ndings highlight trade-
offs which might be related to the four SCRES capabilities
(Shef, 2001). For example, setting up the regional supply
chain organizations improved Cable Cos exibility but, at the
same time, the initial investment had a negative impact on its
costs. When demand declined, the opening of one of the
planned regional supply chain organizations had to be
postponed, otherwise the exibility might have been offset
by an imminent liquidity risk. Future research should explore
these trade-off decisions related to supply chain resilience
management[3].
Notes
1 We will disguise the names of the companies throughout
the paper and refer to these synonyms.
2 We would like to thank one reviewer for this helpful
advice.
3 This helpful comment was also made by one of the
reviewers.
References
Barratt, M. (2004), Understanding the meaning of
collaboration in the supply chain, Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal, Vol. 9 No. 1,
pp. 30-42.
Barratt, M. and Oke, A. (2007), Antecedents of supply chain
visibility in retail supply chains: a resource-based theory,
Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 25 No. 6,
pp. 1217-33.
Blos, M., Quaddus, M., Wee, H. and Watanabe, K. (2009),
Supply chain risk management: a case study of automotive
and electronic industries in Brazil, Supply Chain
pp. 247-52.
Briano, E., Caballini, C. and Revetria, R. (2009), Literature
review about supply chain vulnerability and resilience,
Proceedings of the 8th WSEAS International Conference on
System Science and Simulation in Engineering, pp. 191-7.
Bryman, A. and Bell, E. (2007), Business Research Methods,
Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Chan, H., Wang, W., Luong, L. and Chan, F. (2009),
Flexibility and adaptability in supply chains: a lesson
learned from practitioners, Supply Chain Management:
An International Journal, Vol. 14 No. 6, pp. 407-10.
Chopra, S. and Sodhi, M. (2004), Managing risk to avoid
supply chain breakdown, MIT Sloan Management Review,
Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 53-61.
Christopher, M. (2005), Managing risk in the supply chain,
Logistics and Supply Chain Management: Creating Value-
Adding Networks, 3rd ed., FT Prentice-Hall, Harlow.
Christopher, M. and Lee, H. (2004), Mitigating supply
chain risk through improved condence, International
Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management,
Vol. 34 No. 5, pp. 386-8.
Christopher, M. and Peck, H. (2004), Building the resilient
supply chain, The International Journal of Logistics
Management, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 1-13.
Craneld School of Management (2003), Creating Resilient
Supply Chains: A Practical Guide, Department of Transport,
Craneld School of Management, Craneld.
Ellegaard, C. (2008), Supply risk management in a small
company perspective, Supply Chain Management:
An International Journal, Vol. 13 No. 6, pp. 425-34.
Ellram, L. (1996), The use of case study method in logistics
research, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 17 No. 2,
pp. 93-138.
Faisal, N., Banwet, D.K. and Shankar, R. (2006), Supply
chain risk mitigation: modeling the enablers, Business
Process Management Journal, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 535-52.
Fantazy, K., Kumar, V. and Kumar, U. (2009), An empirical
study of the relationships among strategy, exibility, and
performance in a supply chain context, Supply Chain
pp. 177-88.
Francis, V. (2008), Supply chain visibility: lost in
translation?, Supply Chain Management: An International
Journal, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 180-4.
Hamel, G. and Valikangas, L. (2003), The quest for
resilience, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 81, September,
pp. 52-63.
Johnson, E. (2001), Learning from toys: lessons in managing
supply chain risk from the toy industry, California
Management Review, Vol. 43 No. 3, p. 106.
Ju ttner, U. (2005), Supply chain risk management
understanding the business requirements from a
practitioner perspective, International Journal of Logistics
Ju ttner, U., Peck, H. and Christopher, M. (2003), Supply
chain risk management: outlining an agenda for future
research, International Journal of Logistics, Vol. 6 No. 4,
pp. 197-210.
Khan, O., Christopher, M. and Burnes, B. (2008),
The impact of product design on supply chain risk:
a case study, International Journal of Physical Distribution
& Logistics Management, Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 412-32.
Kolbe, R. and Burnett, M. (1991), Content-analysis
research: an examination of applications with directives
256
for improving research reliability and objectivity, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 243-50.
Krippendorff, K. (1980), Content Analysis: An Introduction to
its Methodology, Sage Publications, London.
Leonard-Barton, D. (1990), A dual methodology for case
studies: synergistic use of longitudinal single site with
replicated multiple sites, Organization Science, Vol. 1 No. 3,
pp. 248-66.
Li, G., Li, Y., Wang, S. and Yan, H. (2006), Enhancing
agility by timely sharing of supply information, Supply
Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 11 No. 5,
pp. 425-35.
Li, X., Goldsby, T. and Holsapple, C. (2009), Supply chain
agility: scale development, The International Journal of
Logistics Management, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 408-24.
Manuj, I. and Mentzer, J. (2008a), Global supply chain risk
management strategies, International Journal of Physical
Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 38 No. 3,
pp. 192-223.
Manuj, I. and Mentzer, J. (2008b), Global supply chain risk
management, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 29 No. 1,
pp. 133-55.
Matook, S., Lasch, R. and Tamaschke, R. (2009), Supplier
development with benchmarking as part of a
comprehensive supplier risk management framework,
International Journal of Operations & Production
Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M. (1994), Qualitative Data
Analysis, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Mitroff, I. and Aplaslan, M. (2003), Preparing for the evil,
Harvard Business Review, Vol. 81 No. 4, pp. 109-15.
Natarajarathinam, M., Capar, I. and Narayanan, A. (2009),
Managing supply chains in times of crisis: a review of
literature and insights, International Journal of Physical
pp. 535-73.
Norrman, A. and Jansson, U. (2004), Ericssons proactive
supply chain risk management approach after a serious sub-
supplier accident, International Journal of Physical
pp. 434-56.
Oehmen, J., Ziegenbein, A., Alard, R. and Scho nsleben, P.
(2009), System-oriented supply chain management,
Production Planning & Control, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 343-61.
Peck, H. (2005), Drivers of supply chain vulnerability:
an integrated framework, International Journal of Physical
pp. 210-32.
Peck, H. (2006), Reconciling supply chain vulnerability, risk
and supply chain management, International Journal of
Logistics: Research and Applications, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 127-42.
Ponomarov, S. and Holcomb, M. (2009), Understanding the
concept of supply chain resilience, The International
Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 124-43.
Rao, S. and Goldsby, T. (2009), Supply chain risks: a review
and typology, The International Journal of Logistics
Rice, J. and Canioato, F. (2003), Building a secure and
resilient supply network, Supply Chain Management
Review, September/October, pp. 22-30.
Richey, R.G. (2009), The supply chain crisis and disaster
pyramid, International Journal of Physical Distribution
Ritchie, B. and Brindley, C. (2007), Supply chain risk
management and performance, International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, Vol. 17 No. 3,
pp. 303-22.
Seuring, S. (2008), Assessing the rigour of case study
research in supply chain management, Supply Chain
pp. 128-37.
Shef, Y. (2001), Supply chain management under the
threat of international terrorism, The International Journal
of Logistics Management, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 1-11.
Shef, Y. (2005a), The Resilient Enterprise Overcoming
Vulnerability for Competitive Advantage, The MIT Press,
Cambridge.
Shef, Y. (2005b), Building a culture of exibility, World
Trade, Vol. 18 No. 12, pp. 26-9.
Shef, Y. and Rice, J.B. (2005), A supply chain view of the
resilient enterprise, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 47
No. 1, pp. 41-8.
Simatupang, T. and Sridharan, R. (2008), Design for supply
chain collaboration, Business Process Management Journal,
Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 401-18.
Singh, P. and Power, D. (2009), The nature and
effectiveness of collaboration between rms, their
customers and suppliers: a supply chain perspective,
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 14
No. 3, pp. 189-200.
Sinha, P.R., Whitman, L.E. and Malzahn, D. (2004),
Methodology to mitigate risk in an aerospace supply
chain, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal,
Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 154-68.
Skipper, J. and Hanna, J. (2009), Minimizing supply chain
disruption risk through enhanced exibility, International
Vol. 39 No. 5, pp. 404-27.
Smith, R. (2004), Operational capabilities for the resilient
supply chain, Supply Chain Practice, Vol. 6 No. 2,
pp. 24-35.
Soosay, C., Hyland, P. and Ferrer, M. (2008), Supply chain
collaboration: capabilities for continuous learning, Supply
Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 13 No. 2,
pp. 160-9.
Stevenson, M. and Spring, M. (2007), Flexibility from a
supply chain perspective: denition and review,
International Journal of Operations & Production
Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1998), Basics of Qualitative
Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded
Theory, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Svensson, G. (2000), A conceptual framework for the
analysis of vulnerability in supply chains, International
Vol. 30 No. 9, pp. 731-49.
Svensson, G. (2002), A conceptual framework of
vulnerability in rms in-bound and out-bound logistics
ows, International Journal of Physical Distribution
Tang, C. (2006), Perspectives in supply chain risk
management, International Journal of Production
Economics, Vol. 103 No. 2, pp. 451-88.
Tang, C. and Tomlin, B. (2008), The power of exibility for
mitigating supply chain risks, International Journal of
Production Economics, Vol. 116, pp. 12-27.
257
Teece, D. (2007), Explicating dynamic capabilities: the
nature and microfoundations of sustainable enterprise
performance, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 28
No. 13, pp. 1319-50.
Van der Vorst, J. and Beulens, A. (2002), Identifying sources
of uncertainty to generate supply chain redesign and
strategies, International Journal of Physical Distribution
Wagner, S. and Bode, C. (2006), An empirical investigation
into supply chain vulnerability, Journal of Purchasing
& Supply Management, Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 301-12.
Weber, R.P. (1990), Basic Content Analysis, 2nd ed., Sage
publications, Newbury Park, CA.
Wei, H-L. and Wang, E. (2010), The strategic value of
supply chain visibility: increasing the ability to recongure,
European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 19, pp. 238-49.
Yin, R.K. (1981), The case study crisis: some answers,
Administrative Science Quarterly, pp. 58-65.
Yin, R.K. (2003), Case Study Research Design and Methods,
3rd ed., Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Zacharia, Z., Nix, N. and Lusch, R. (2009), An analysis of
supply chain collaborations and their effect on performance
outcomes, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 30 No. 2,
pp. 101-24.
Zsidisin, G.A. (2003), Managerial perceptions of risk,
The Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 39 No. 1,
pp. 14-25.
Zsidisin, G.A. and Smith, M. (2005), Managing supply risk
with early supplier involvement a case study and research
propositions, The Journal of Supply Chain Management,
Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 44-57.
Further reading
Haywood, M. and Peck, H. (2003), Supply chain
vulnerability within UK aerospace manufacturing:
a methodology for supply chain risk management
research, Supply Chain Practice, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 20-33.
Khan, O. and Creazza, A. (2009), Managing the product
design-supply chain interface, International Journal of
Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 39
No. 4, pp. 301-19.
Kiser, J. and Cantrell, G. (2006), 6 steps to managing risk,
Supply Chain Management Review, Vol. 10 No. 3, p. 12.
Wagner, S. and Bode, C. (2008), An empirical investigation
of supply chain performance along several dimensions of
risk, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 307-25.
Wu, T., Blackhurts, J. and Chidambaram, V. (2006),
A model for inbound supply risk analysis, Computers in
Industry, Vol. 57 No. 4, pp. 350-65.
Appendix. Base case protocol
I. Research questions/issues
Research questions/issues and tasks covered in the workshops rst
data collection phase 2007
1 Understanding/dening the supply chain (supply chain
mapping exercise).
2 Dening the main processes and process responsibilities
in the supply chain.
3 Brainstorming on the risks that could potentially effect the
supply chain.
4 Process-based analysis of the risk sources and
consequences.
5 Assessment of the risks identied based on the probability
of occurrence and the perceived business impact.
6 Discussion of all existing risk management actions
implemented by the company.
7 Evaluation of the risk management actions based on their
perceived effectiveness.
8 Discussion of all risk management actions planned in the
future.
Research questions/issues covered in the semi-structured interviews
which followed the workshops rst data collection phase 2007
1 Do the workshop notes and supply chain risk analysis
accurately represent the situation in your company/in the
supply chain?
2 From the perspective of your supply chain process
responsibility, are there any:
.
risk sources?
.
risk consequences?
.
existing risk mitigation actions?
.
planned risk mitigation actions which are not listed in
the workshop notes?
3 Are archival data available?
4 Any follow-up comments?
5 Additional contacts?
Research questions/issues covered in the semi-structured interviews
second data collection phase 2009
1 Compared with the last data collection in 2007, which
have been the major:
.
Industry/market changes?
.
Supplier market changes?
.
Changes in your supply chain?
.
Changes in your company?
2 To what extent and how has the nancial crisis affected:
.
your industry (on a global, regional and national
level)?
.
your supply chain and supply chain targets?
.
your company and company targets?
3 Would you say that your supply chain was prepared for
the nancial crisis? . . . reacts well to the challenges
related with the nancial crisis? . . . will soon recover
from the impact the nancial crisis has had on your
supply chain?
4 Compared with your main competitor(s), how well is
your company/supply chain dealing with the nancial
crisis?
5 From a supply chain perspective, which are the major
management challenges triggered by the nancial crisis?
6 Which are the major resources/skills/capabilities of your
supply chain which help to control or restrict the impact
of the nancial crisis?
II. Methodology/case study design
A. Multiple case study design
1 Each case as a replication, not as a single response to a
survey.
2 Write up each case develop a standard case format and
an overall case database.
3 Relationship between key concepts will be explored from a
practitioner perspective.
258
4 Different mindsets of functional representatives will be
captured but then convergence regarding an agreed
supply chain view will be sought.
B. Case study selection
Companies meet the relevant concept-derived criteria of the
research:
1 Firms known to have an interest in SCRM.
2 Cooperation from managers of the key supply chain
processes (Sales/marketing/distribution; product
management, production, logistics, sourcing).
3 Willingness to participate in at least one cross-functional
workshop.
4 Firms in different industries.
5 Firms from an industry (strongly) affected by the nancial
crisis.
6 Willingness to share information on the supply chain
effects of the nancial crisis in 2009.
III. Data collection sources of evidence
1 Documentation:
.
internal presentations on supply chain (risk) related
strategies and actions;
.
internal documents (e.g. supplier vulnerability
questionnaire and ndings, supplier evaluation tools
or business continuity plans) and memos related to
SCRM;
.
ip charts, Power Point presentations with workshop
results.
2 Interviews:
.
Phase 1 2007: respondents who are not able to
participate in one of the workshops are interviewed to
corroborate/complement/augment the workshop
ndings.
.
Phase 2 2009: key informants open ended
interview; key events within the two years since the
last data collection and effect of those events for the
industry, supply chain and the rm.
IV. Data analysis
1 A priori coding based on the literature-derived code
denitions:
.
dene coding scheme and code denitions for the
main concepts of interest;
.
dene/delineate recording units and context units;
.
code raw data; and
.
assess inter-judge reliability.
2 Selective coding associations/pattern building:
.
associations/patterns between the codes within each
concept; and
.
associations/patterns between the codes of different
concepts.
3 Explanation building:
.
No intention to generalize the ndings but to
unpack and describe the causal powers between the
concepts investigated.
.
Link theory/literature review to the case ndings.
Corresponding author
Uta Ju ttner can be contacted at: u.b.juettner@craneld.ac.uk
259
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Supply Chain

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Supply Chain

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Supply Chain Management: An International Journal

Emerald Article: Supply chain resilience in the global financial crisis:

You might also like